The power bait

Avoiding power is the new game in town, and curiously, it is the established parties that seem as adept at evading power as they are at contriving it, than the newbie AAP, which is feeling a little bit trapped at the moment. Of course, the Congress is not really a contender, but by offering unconditional support to Kejriwal, it is trying to put him in a spot. The BJP, which by virtue of being the largest party, should have borne the primary responsibility of trying to cobble together a government has cleverly sidestepped the issue. As a result, the AAP is the cynosure of all eyes, and is in danger of being labelled by other parties and many indepenent commentators as a party that is good at protesting but one that shies away from taking on responsibility.

The AAP’s response has been characteristically both public and messy. Setting an 18 point list of conditions might seem like a clever way of transferring responsibility to the other parties, but it also muddies the waters as to what the AAP’s intentions truly are. By taking note of the accusation of evading responsibility, it in some way, acknowledges the problem, and once it does that, there can be no convincing and definitive answer that it can provide. The subject is handled best at the level of principle, the moment the party openly discusses practicalities, it gets co-opted into a conversation it cannot rise above.

In this case, it should have been very simple. The AAP has not got a mandate; it is not even the largest single party. The seats it has won have been on the basis of strong opposition to both the parties and it has expressly stated on several occasions that it will neither support nor accept the support of either party. Conventionally, power has a way of making these pre-election positions elastic, but it is precisely that political culture of expediency that the AAP is fighting. Power is not an automatic and inescapable imperative, it is a choice that a political formation makes if it believes that it would enable it to change things in line with its own beliefs.

In this case, there is no realistic chance of that happening. The offer of support from the Congress, for instance does not come with even a smidgeon of honest intention. Usually, the party offering support has at least one element of honesty — that of MLAs wanting to retain their seats and hence wanting to avoid elections. in the case of the Congress, there aren’t enough seats to worry about, so even that motivation is absent. The offer of support is a transparent ploy, and one that needs to be rejected outright. Accepting support or being seen to dally with the idea of accepting it are both damaging for it ends up compromising AAP’s claims to being the third force.

What is being attempted is to dismantle the idea that a third way is at all possible. The moment the AAP takes on a pillion rider, it is becomes part of an old and familiar binary of power. It becomes part of a choice set that resides inside conventional politics and familiar politicking, rather than outside it. For the AAP to be credible third force, it must maintain distance from both national parties, whatever the price.

And there might well be a price. While it is likely that the AAP is able to make a strong case to voters that it needs just a little push to cross the finishing line, it is possible that the next time around, the BJP might emerge stronger. Given that fresh polls would in all likelihood coincide with the national elections, it is possible that Delhi might tilt further towards the BJP, leaving AAP out in the cold. If that does happen, then so be it. As this column argued last week, the AAP’s principal role is to change politics, rather than becoming good at it today.

In the meantime, the one great danger that the party faces is the urge to get drawn into all manner of conflicts. Arvind Kejriwal operates best when he is engaged in a scrappy battle with reality; on media his brand of fractiousness gets tedious very quickly. More importantly, it makes the AAP appear to be a party with small ideas and petty concerns. If on ground, any action is better than none, on air, silence is the better presumptive strategy. It is not a coincidence that the AAP performed best when it was outside the scrutiny and attention of media. It is also important for the party to avoid the kind of free sideshows of the Ralegaon kind. The best strategy with respect to Anna is keeping a respectful distance. With time, the need to explain the estrangement with Anna has diminished as indeed has the aura around him. Getting into a dogfight on the Lokpal bill that might get passed by Parliament helps only the other parties.

The only difference that the stellar performance in Delhi should make is for the party to elevate its own concerns to larger questions related to governing rather than protesting. The Mamata Banerjee example underlines how difficult it is for habitual agitators to become administrators. This is the time for clarity, and of visibly staying close to one’s stated principles. This is also the time to focus on the task on the ground rather than the temptation that is floating around in the air.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Comments on this post are closed now

Be the first one to review.

Author

Santosh Desai is a leading ad professional. He says he has strayed into writing entirely by accident, and for this he is "grateful". "City City Bang Bang" looks at contemporary Indian society from an everyday vantage point. It covers issues big and small, tends where possible to avoid judgmental positions, and tries instead to understand what makes things the way they are. The desire to look at things with innocent doubt helps in the emergence of fresh perspectives and hopefully, of clarity of a new kind.

Santosh Desai is a leading ad professional. He says he has strayed into writing entirely by accident, and for this he is "grateful". "City City Bang Bang" l. . .